Which came first, the chicken or the egg
-
Originally posted by JLam aka Mexstes:
You never know, you know. -
yea and where do u suppose those amoebas or tiny microscopic things came from? from hell? got a better answer??Originally posted by Hidden^OnE:Oh yeah... And we should all believe in the theory that some almighty snapped his fingers and we all appear... Yeah... Real smart... -
dun underestimate the raw power of thought thoughOriginally posted by kopiosatu:u think too much
good mathematicians can develop elegant theories from pure thought. einstein, richard feymann are also splendid examples of theoretical physicsts proposing mind shattering theories
-
They come from the "Force",energy,souls.
Then at the end still go back to "God".That's why "GoD" exists when noone know the answer.
Blame the unknown so called "God"
But something that doubt in my mind is why there are people who claim that they can communicate with "Spirits".But can't give the answer for the egg abd the chicken.Which one come first. -
evolution used to be a pseudo science because we dun have a strong foundation to prove it. after the human genome project has completed, we know the DNA sequence of humans, apes, mouse, chickens, pigs, fish etc. we then compare the DNA sequences of humans with other mammals and we found that we are 99% similar to mouse, 99.9% similar to chimpanzees and less similar to pigs. however, for certain proteins such as insulin, we have almost identical insulin with pigs but not mouse or chimpanzees.Originally posted by Allen.Iverson:evolution is not proven. and i dont want to believe in such a ridiculously stupid theory. would u wanna think u came from those apes??? its stupid. really. darwin was just being dumb when he came up with that crap.
these results strongly supports evolution theory:
1) the DNA similarity of humans with apes
2) the "cut-and-paste" type of a new species creation. in other words, a lot of biomolecules are conserved in many species.
the burden now is to prove that evolution theory is wrong -
the self-flowing flask can be a perpetual motion machine if and only if:Originally posted by Saint Valentine:A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that seems to lead to a contradiction or to a situation that defies intuition. Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true (or, cannot all be true together). The recognition of ambiguities, equivocations, and unstated assumptions underlying known paradoxes has led to significant advances in science, philosophy and mathematics.
The word paradox is often used interchangeably and wrongly with contradiction; but where a contradiction by definition cannot be true, many paradoxes do allow for resolution, though many remain unresolved or only contentiously resolved
self-flowing flask fills itself in this diagram, but perpetual motion machines cannot exist.
1) frictionless flask and tubes, so no head is lost
2) the tube for the water to flow back to the flask must be lower than the original water level in the flask